February 12, 2009

Geert Wilders and Free Speech

Dutch MP Geert Wilders' film Fitna which includes very
disturbing scenes of violence (including 9/11,the aftermath of Madrid and London bombings, beheading and execution), incitement to violence and hate speech
carried out by Muslim extremists in the name of their religion,
juxtaposed with verses from the Koran and an 'anti-Islamisation' message
is on YouTube in two parts here.
Wilders implicitly generalises from what some extremists have done in
the name of their religion to the idea that Islam in every aspect is an
evil. There is no sense that there could be a moderate Muslim. This is
not a balanced documentary treatment. Islam is presented as a ticking
bomb within the Netherlands (and presumably elsewhere). There is no serious suggestion of how this alleged threat to Western democracy can be addressed. This is why
this film is so controversial and why the British Government has
prevented him from entering the UK despite his being a democratically
elected politician from an EEC country. There are also links
immediately after this movie to response videos of various kinds including by Muslims.

On the free speech issue here, the easy availability of the video on
the Internet means that his rather crude message is not, as yet,
censored in the UK. To that extent his freedom to communicate his ideas
does not seem to have been radically curbed. In fact the UK
Government's refusal to let him enter the country means that many more
people will now watch this video in order to try to understand the ban.
So indirectly they are increasing the number of people who watch
Wilders' movie - which is presumably the opposite of what they intend.
Whether the UK Government can now consistently apply the principle on
which his ban on entry was made - that his presence is likely to incite violence - remains to be seen.

Nigel,
I'm not sure your analysis provides a satisfactory account of the reasoning behind Wilder's ban. The crudeness of otherwise of his argument (and incidentally I agree, it is crude) would surely not lead to a ban.
The decision is more likely to be political. The Muslim vote is important in the UK.
However, if we rationalise the decision philosophically, we must look at the Harm Principle: the reasoning here might be that Wilder's presence might have a direct causal link to civil disturbance, and consequently damage to property and person.
However, I always consider your excellent point in Arguments for Freedom (A211), paraphrased: The government's role, some might argue, is to protect the free speech and prevent the civil disturbance that follows.
Regards

I also read "Arguments for Freedom" while studying with the OU. I seem to recall your interpretation of Mill's famous "corn dealers" passage. Did you not say that the context in which one's views were expressed mattered? I cannot for the life of me see how one could equate the venue of Wilders' proposed showing of "Fitna" - the House of Lords, of all places - with an excited mob, assembled outside someone's house.

You say that "Fitna" is not a balanced documentary treatment. On this point, I think of Mill again, as he laid out his "partly true argument." He said that even if one's "heretical" views are not entirely correct, and let's grant for the sake of argument that this is the case in Wilders' movie, they may still contain parts of a larger truth, "suppressed and neglected truths," which can be revealed through "the rough process of a struggle between combatants fighting under hostile banners."

Finally, I must disagree with your assertion that in Wilders' movie there is no sense that there could be a moderate Muslim. Wilders explicitly states that it is not for him, but for Muslims, to find a way of dealing with the (many!) verses in the Koran advocating violent behaviour. Surely this statement of Wilders' rests on the assumption that it is possible for one to be "a moderate Muslim?"